- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against an order dated 15.11.1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court interfering with certain orders passed by the appellant-State with regard to the constitution of the Managing Committee of the respondent- College. The learned Single Judge had further directed that the maintenance and grant-in-aid to the respondent-College be released and disbursed by the State without insisting upon compliance with the order(s) impugned in the writ petition.
(2.) That the respondent-College is a minority institution is not disputed before the Court. The agreement between the parties on the said issue severely truncates the dimensions of the conflict between the parties in view of the law that has crystalized over the years in respect of minority institutions and the extent of governmental control over such institutions. The decisions of the Apex Court lay down the law which in substance is that there can be no governmental control over the affairs of a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution. It will not be necessary to enter into a detailed narration of the various decisions of the Apex Court. However, by way of illustration, the decision in Secy, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose and others, 2007 1 SCC 386 may be usefully referred to. In the said decision, the Apex Court had occasion to consider several other decisions on the point including the decision in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2003 2 SCT 385 . On an exhaustive consideration of the several cases referred to in the judgment, including the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case , the Apex Court in para 19 of the judgment had culled out the following general principles relating to administration of minority educational institutions :- "19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities may be summarised thus : (i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights: (a) to choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; (b) to appoint teaching staff (teachers/lecturers and Headmasters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff, and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees; (c) to admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; (d) to use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution."
(3.) In the present case, the main features of the directions issued by the State Government by its memo. dated 28.3.1979 (Annexure P-2) contained in Sr.No. (i) to (ix) as summarised by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge, the College has no objection in implementing the directions contained against Sr.Nos. (vii), (viii) and (ix) inasmuch as the same are beneficial to its employees. The aforesaid three directions are being extracted below for the purpose of clarity :- "vii) that the College shall pay gratuity to its employees on the pattern as is admissible to Government employees; viii) that the college shall also pay full additional Dearness Allowance to its employees with effect from Ist April, 1979; ix) that the salary of teachers un-approved by the University/Government shall not be taken into consideration for calculating the maintenance and the grant-in-aid.";